하향평가와 상향평가 결과에 영향을 미치는 특성 분석

Abstract

This study was designed to compare the differences m results of supervisor and subordinate rating. Data was collected from personnel evaluation and subordinate rating results for middle managers(n=68) in hospital from 3rd January to 20th March in 2004. Supervisor rating consisted of performance, ability and attitude evaluation. Subordinate rating consisted of leadership, ability and attitude evaluation. Collected data included sociodemographic characteristics, work department, work level, years of work, years at present level and whether working in a patient serving department. The difference of standardized supervisor and subordinate rating score was used to define groups as 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Groups were defined in total score, ability score and attitude score. Main results were as follows: 1. In total score, sectional chiefs were apt to be 'higher in subordinate rating group' while chief clerks were apt to be 'similar group' or 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Staffs in patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in supervisor rating group' and staffs in non-patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. All these results were statistically significant. 2. In ability score, there were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, years of education, work department, work level, years of work and whether working in a patient serving department among 'higher in supervisor rating group', 'similar group' and 'higher in subordinate rating group'. 3. In attitude score, staffs in the department of medical affairs and the department of administration were apt to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in the department of nursing were apt to be 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Staffs in a patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in supervisor rating group' and staffs in a non-patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. All these results were statistically significant. 4. Logistic analysis about total score showed that sectional chiefs had higher Odds Ratio(OR) to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Both these results were statistically significant. 5. Logistic analysis about ability score showed that sectional chiefs had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. These results were not statistically significant. 6. Logistic analysis about total score showed that sectional chiefs had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group', but the difference was not statistically significant. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had significantly higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. In conclusion, there is no clear superiority between supervisor and subordinate rating in personnel evaluation. It would be better to use a mixed model. It's also suggested to use an intervening rate of application or scores considering work levels and work department in personnel evaluation. These results would be helpful for hospitals planning a supervisor and subordinate rating system for personnel evaluation.